IT (And Other) Salaries On The Rise In The U.S.

pertinax18 writes "CNN Money is reporting that salaries for most college grads are on the rise once again. Especially interesting to collegiate (and other) /. readers may be the 4.1% increase in pay for CS grads, and 10.7% increases in pay for others in the field. From the article: 'If those numbers sound enticing, it's probably because computer science graduates are long overdue for a pay increase. "They haven't seen an increase since 2001 and this is the first year, in all four reports, that they showed an increase," Koncz says.' Are things finally starting to look up for us?"

Comments

Bush's Fault

[ari_j]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

The article says they are long overdue, so they're going up in spite of Bush.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Forge]

It's the fault of the guy with the hose when your house gets wet. When he runs out of water and your house dries out again is that his fault too?

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that IT salaries went down, along with most of the rest of the economy, is that Bush et al were in constant fear mongering mode (remember the recommendation to buy duct-tape and visqueen?). That has yet to change, but finally the public is realizing that all this terror alert crap really is just that. Hence it is improving in spite of the current regime's policies, not because of them.

I see your -1 Troll and raise you a -1 Flamebait!

Re:Bush's Fault

[spoonyfork]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

Obviously Bush is to blame for causing the problem resulting in salaries going down and someone else is to be lauded for fixing the problem and making them go up.

Re:Bush's Fault

[ari_j]

So you're saying that things were not on the decline until spring, 2001? Seems to me that 2000 wasn't all that hot, either. Explain how you blame that on Bush.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok mister know-it-all... we get a 10% increase... yet cost of living has increased 15% during that time period.

we get a 5% decrease! YAY!

I flip a big middle finger to all company owners for being fucking assholes and not giving raises that at least pace with cost of living.

Re:Bush's Fault

[njfuzzy]

If they really went up, it would be great. However, if they can't keep pace with inflation, then the slight increases we see can just be considered cost-of-living catch-up.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Ubergrendle]

After 3+ years of downturn (e.g. wasn't there an article detailing the net-loss of 400,000 IT jobs in North American just a few days ago here on slashdot?) it will take more than a one-time modest increase to give the Bush administration credit.

If things do turn around over several successful quarters, you can ask this question again and expect a fair answer.

Given the relatively bleak outlook on the economy right now, I don't think that this is likely. Typically there is a modest boost in economic output during an election year due to American optimism, but even THAT effect is heavily muted this year.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

(sarcasm) No, it's not Bush's fault when salaries go down. It's those danm Iraqis who crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11 (/sarcasm)

Seriously, this is a common mind set for us humans. We commonly ask God 'why' when things go bad, but never say 'thanks' when things go good.

Re:Bush's Fault

[randall_burns]

It isn't just inflation-you need to look at where the jobs are. We've seen a decline in IT jobs the last few years-and much of that decline is in the places with the lower cost of living--so all these figures mean is that newer grads are getting jobs in places like California with a high cost of living.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot some

3. Executive and Management salaries increased over 35% in that time period every 1% increase in executive equal's a 3% increase for ALL tech employees.

95% of all the work that makes the money for a company is done by the bottom 60% of the employees, yet they recieve the least raises and bonuses. While a single bonus given to the average Executive that certianly does not need it can give a significant pay increase to most of the employees.

I agree, Flip off the asshole executives and managers. they get fat doing not a damn thing while the rest of us slave for them.

Pay the REAL assets of your company.

There will be a huge talent fallout in the US. these braindead fuckwad executives will lose the brightest minds they can get to their competition the second the competition realizes that for only 20-30% more they can easily steal those minds.

Re:Bush's Fault

[pyros]

because under clinton inherited terrible numbers and turned them around. gwb inherited clinton's numbers and turned them around, and it slowly creeping back to being as good as clinton's in some areas. i think a better question is why are all the threads mentioning bush started by flambaiters defending bush from attacks which hadn't yet been made?

Re:Bush's Fault

[chris_mahan]

Why should they pay more if someone will do the same job for less?

If you want larger salary, you ask for it. If you are afraid, then there is something else at play.

PS: You hardly ever want to tell your boss you want more money without doing your homework first. But on the other hand, don;t go apply for a job elsewhere just to see how much they'll offer you so you can tell your current boss, because the new company will feel slighted and you may need them in the future (like 6 months down the road after you really get fed up and just walk out).

The other thing you want to do is keep learning on your own. I have learned that you don't actually learn new stuff at companies. You have to learn it on your own time. It also demonstrates to potential employers that you are self-motivated, able to take on a difficult project, and are able to carry it to fruition.

Finally, save some money. Put aside enough for 6 months of living expenses. That way, besides earning a little bit of interest, you'll have enough money to weather a sudden job change, and not feel pressured into taking whatever just to pay next month's rent.
Trust me on that one.

Now, for some more on-topic stuff:
As someone mentioned, other costs have risen steadily for a while. We're seeing a reajustment of wages to match the increase in the cost of living. In Computer stuff, a lot of people have given up on the field altogether and gone back to the farm (so to speak) or became realtors, etc. I say this is good as there are more people in the computer field that do it "for the love of the game" rather than just for the quick buck.

Re:Bush's Fault

[nahdude812]

"Intentionally" implies insight into administration motivation which no one here on Slashdot is likely to possess.

But even if the guy with the hose wasn't intending to water your front door, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

I think the point is, it's possible for Bush to have squashed jobs, then later through inaction on his part, jobs come back. Some will say it's brilliant strategy by Bush to do nothing, others will say it's sheer laziness by Bush. In the end, it doesn't really matter, if being an inactive president is good for the country, then an inactive president is a good president.

That said, Bush sucks, and trashed our economy as well as the balanced budget.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Beatbyte]

it was already going the way of the titanic when he entered office.

it actually started going down as of 97... which was when everyone's favorite president was in office.

why didn't he get blamed for the dot bomb of 97?

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The more likely case is that the economy was already fragile and on course to cracking regardless if Bush or Gore had been president.

And as a more-liberal person than you, I agree. Stock prices were amazingly untenable, and for years people outside of the feeding frenzy that was "invent doing something... On The Internet (TM) and retire from the IPO" expressed their fears of this system openly. That anyone blames the .com bust (and the resulting economic halt thanks to the pessimism it generated) on anything other than raw, blind greed is something I cannot fathom.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Omega1045]

If I recall it was just two (2) months into Bush's presidency that most economists came out and called it a recession. I don't care if you are Satan himself, you cannot kill the economy in two months.

I am not a Bush fanboy, but I would also like to point out that it is interesting that all the Enron, etc, crap is pointed at Bush when it all occured during the Clinton administration under the nose of Reno.

Re:Bush's Fault

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Because the economy kept growing for three and a half more years?

Re:Bush's Fault

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The more likely case is that the economy was already fragile and on course to cracking regardless if Bush or Gore had been president.

That is an adequate explanation for 2001. But it fails to explain that Bush promised hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month if his tax cut was passed, and it was passed, and the jobs just haven't materialized.

Most economists believe that other choices, like modest tax cuts targeting the middle class along with extending unemployment insurance, would have cost the treasury far less, and done far more to get the economy moving again.

Re:Bush's Fault

[I_Want_This_ID]

That's just what MOST economists think. Most of them also think that 400+ Billion and growing deficits are bad too.

Luckily, we have the OTHER economists running the majority of the coutry (at the state and federal levels) who believe rightly that the economy can truly be jump started by giving more money to those with the lowest propensity to spend (aka: rich people).

Then they can fall back on having the conservative media sound machine (fox news, 90% of talk radio, clear channel, etc...) to continuously spout about the "liberal media"

Thanks for not paying attention

Re:Bush's Fault

[cluckshot]

First I would agree that the economy wasn't doing too well in 2001! Next I will give instructions on how to start an Instant Recession.

Begin by sturring in the information to CEO types that you will no longer enforce the border. (This kills the labor market) Throw in a dash of telling them that the US Justice Department will quit looking to see if they are doing securities fraud etc. (This loots the money from investors) Turn up the heat on the pot by demanding Trade Promotion Authority (Which makes the companies have no national loyalty) and then simmer gently over a fire of refusing to enforce environmental, health and safety laws.

If that doesn't work bring in advisers who talk about outsourcing as being good for the economy and the mad rush will be on...

But that didn't happen did it?!? Of course having busines s awaiting new more favorable tax laws will halt their current plans too. When these passed they could best be stated that they told American Business to "Get the Hell out of the USA ASAP!"

You were entirely fair about Enron except not noting who supported who for the Presidency...

Re:Bush's Fault

[ShieldWolf]

Bush began to send the economy into recession BEFORE he became president, and here's how:

He and Cheney kept referring to the weakening economy as being in "likely recession" (Which is was not at the time) during the 2000 eleciton cycle. Every politician and economist knows that you don't use the word recession until the downturn is either fully engaged or over in order to avoid having it become a self-fulfilling prophesy, i.e. people hear the word recession and they begin to dial down their spending and increase their saving in order to ride it out, thus creating the recession. Futhermore they chose to refer to the education situation in the country as an "education recession", in order to have the word repeated as many times as possible. during campaign. The reasons for doing so are obvious: if enough people think the economy is going in the wrong direction they will likely want new leadership to change the diection. So Bush and Cheney helped create, or at the very least worsen, a recession solely for the purpose of getting elected which I think is pretty sick.

Feel free to google or Lexus/Nexus the above to confirm.

Re:Bush's Fault

[Joey7F]

The way I see it, we had many more years of prosperity under Clinton than under Bush. Period. It might have sucked towards the end of Clinton, but it's sucked during Bush's entire presidency.

Okay let me expand that...

If it was bad towards the end of Clinton, you would agree it would be, by default, bad under Bush for a certain amount of time, right?

How long does it take to get policy ennacted? Nothing Bush did would have an effect until at least Summer of 01 (when tax cuts got put into the economy), a month after those we got a huge twist to the economic plan.

9/11 was to the Economy what the Mule was to Hari Seldon's plan.

So now we have that as well as corporate fraud that shakes the foundation of Wall Street, and a stock market crash (albeit not in that order). Bush will be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net jobs loss. He and Hoover had to deal with one thing in common...a market crash. This one was not as severe which is why when you look outside, it doesn't bear much resemblance to the Great Depression.

We are just now getting back on track from 3 economic altering events. Had we not had those, we would be in the greatest boom of all time. In fact, if Bush is reelected, we will likely get exactly that. Don't confuse the economy under Clinton from 1996->1999 with the economy from 1992-1996.

In 1996 we had the same unemployment as we do now, similar growth etc.

--Joey

Re:Bush's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

For Bush, what economic improvement there may have been comes courtesy of an enormous increase in the deficit -- money borrowed from future generations that didn't vote for him yet. Even if the economic achievement from this were on par (debatable), why should people be impressed?

Almost anybody can get a credit card and spend a few thousand on goodies that make you look wealthy, but the repo men will come by soon after if you can't make the payments. For that kind of risky expendature, you better have a pretty lucrative scam that will pay off by the end of the month, or you are in deep financial trouble, especially if you simultaneously decreased your revenue.

A mediocre economic turnaround by end-of-term? Going much deeper into debt isn't paying off much so far, and it is interesting to consider who has benefited the most from the changes in the tax regime.

Re:Bush's Fault

[SubtleNuance]

Nice Try CPT. Republican.

In fact, this article is dribble. Yes, the rates
'went up' -- but who cares? Big deal? They are still *way* down since Bush came to office. Further, trying to suggest a trend -- from a single uptick -- is statistically meaningless.

*AND* This article didnt mention two very important issues: A) Inflation and B) The Value of the US Dollar.

A) The inflation has been relatively low. Meaning prices in the marketplace are much the same.

BUT:

B) Your dollar has taken a shit-kicking. Pre Bush the USD was worth far more than today. Have a look here. The US Dollar was worth $1.12 Euros on Jan 6th 2001. Today, the US Dollar is worth $0.88 Euro. The US Dollar was worth $1.58 Canadian on Jan 6th 2001. Today, the US Dollar is worth $1.28 Canadian.

Do you know what that means? That yes, the salaries have 'gone up', but you are far *FAR* worse off.

Not only are you (over the term) making less. BUT what you *are* making is actually worth less!

This slide in your dollar is the most alarming aspect of your economy that you USofAmericans arent really noticing -- i dont know why.

This is incredibly dangerous territory for you Yanks. Your balloning budget deficits results from tax cuts are helping to cause this weakened dollar. And a slower stock market. All this wants to increase inflation -- this reduces consumer confidence... and really reduces buying power.

Add it all up and people cannot buy as much with the money they do have, nor do they want to, because of a slowed economy.

Put two and two and two and two together and you get a recession... or worse.

You guys are in far worse trouble than you think -- and never mind this nonsense "salary increase" PR. In fact, your salaries have been SLAUGHTERED in the last 3 years.

Re:Bush's Fault

[jafac]

I would also like to point out that it is interesting that all the Enron, etc, crap is pointed at Bush when it all occured during the Clinton administration under the nose of Reno

Don't forget that in the closing months of 2001, it was a top news story, I'm talking about headline news, for weeks and weeks, that 1. Enron was going bankrupt, and 2. They, and their Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson, were shredding documents by the Truckload.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I were a cop, standing outside a drug dealer's house, and heard the toilet flushing, I'd bust in the door right away.

Bush's DOJ sat around for WEEKS with their thumbs up their asses, while evidence was being destroyed.

ABSOLUTELY incompetent.

And today, three years later - only a couple of token scapegoats have been tried, and the kingpin was FINALLY just charged, with the expectation that he'll get it thrown out because there wasn't enough evidence to prove he knew what was going on. That's right. He was *competent* enough to draw a hundred-million dollar salary and perks, but not competent enough to spot rampant corruption in his own organization which ultimately caused the largest bankruptcy in US History.

The end result: millions of American Investors fled the stock market in terror, resulting in the worst bear-market since the Great Depression.

The Executive Branch is responsible for Law Enforcement. They fucked up. Either on purpose, or accidentally. Either case is absolutely unacceptable. Especially right on the heels of the worst Security failure in US History (9/11 right after Bush's monthlong vacation).

Re:Bush's Fault

[ezHiker]

I sure wish folks would realize that the economy expands and contracts in cycles, for very complex reasons, regardless of who's the President.
It's funny that people vote for this or that presidential candidate thinking that all of the economic problems will go away if their favorite is elected, but things just don't work that way in a capitalist economy.
Of course, it also didn't help the already contracting economy when a few assholes flew airplanes into our buildings a couple of years ago.

one omission

[rritterson]

The numbers look great on a cursory glance, but they are missing one thing important: They don't list what percentage of graduates were able to find a job within x months of graduation.

So sure, maybe the ones that were hired are making more, but if they are only hiring a small percentage of grads, you'd expect them to make more, wouldn't you? (As they would be more qualified than the average grad)

Re:one omission

[ari_j]

Don't forget about inflation. Even if you find a job that pays 4.1% more than it would have a year go, you're still taking a hit if inflation is over 4.1%.

Re:one omission

[DAldredge]

No, it isn't. That number is as much BS as enron's books. It doesn't include food and energy (gas, natural gas, fuel oil, petro, or electricty) in its figures.

What has went up the most in the past 12-24 months? Food (Milk and anything made with milk) and Energy prices.

Funny how it excludes the products that almost everyone has to buy from its calculations, isn't it?

CS != IT

[drinkypoo]

While there is certainly crossover, your typical IT employee is/was not a CS major. CS is programming and software engineering, IT is servers and networks, and yes, occasionally writing some code. Programmers' salaries rising doesn't mean shit to most of us IT employees.

Re:CS != IT

[ari_j]

CS is a branch of IT. So one segment of the IT job market is covered here. I agree that the title is misleading, but this is Slashdot, where there are more fact-checkers than any other site by the same name. Or maybe it's tied.

Theory

[webword]

Low wage jobs have been outsourced from the U.S. therefore the remaining jobs in U.S. drive higher mean wages, even for college graduates.

Recent College Grads Only

[digThisXL]

The 4.1% increase is reflective of *recent* graduates only. The rest of us poor experienced scum suffer with a COLA raise if we're lucky!

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile CEO salaries are up 200%. Yeah, I'm really excited about my 2% pay increase now.

SHHHHHHHHHH

[slashdot_punk]

Stop pimping IT. We need perception to be BAD... so students stop taking IT majors.

That's what will increase our salaries and our demand.

Re:What a Crock

[JaffaKREE]

Right, because salaries of recently graduated IT people have nothing to do with salaries of veteran IT people.

College

[TPoise]

Many CS majors have it all wrong. College isn't about wasting 4-6 years studying, it's about doing something PRODUCTIVE during that time (co-op, internships, start your own business, develop a new 3-d game engine). Something to show that I have talent. Unfortunately darwinism is taking place and only the strongest are surviving right now. The weak are all complaining that it's Bush's fault that they have no experience and aren't willing to relocate to take on an entry-level job.

Only the strongest will survive.

Re:College

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What about the ones with 10-12 years of experience that were laid off for 2+ years and still have to relocate to take on an entry level job? Sometimes the strongest get hit at random too.

Re:College

[velo_mike]

Many CS majors have it all wrong. College isn't about wasting 4-6 years studying, it's about doing something PRODUCTIVE during that time (co-op, internships, start your own business, develop a new 3-d game engine).

I wish I had mod points for this one.

Unfortunately, college has been dumbed down to where high school used to be. We're now faced with streams of college graduates who spent their time either sleeping or partying wondering why, oh why don't I have a job.

Re:Are they really?

[krem81]

And if that's teh case, then it is a good thing. If we always kept our low-paying jobs, half the country would still be laying bricks and raising cattle.

No

[cubicledrone]

Are things finally starting to look up for us?"

Is it a good thing we got a 4% raise on the job we got laid off from?

Oh, and 4% PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR,would just about keep up with inflation. Then, maybe management would notice the 15% annual increase in housing costs...

Perhaps,

[Teclis]

If IT Jobs are really earning more money than there must be a few things going on. Firstly, The industry may be seeing increased profits, Secondly, There may be increased demand for IT Professionals. Thirdly, There may be a decreased supply of IT Professionals.

The salary paid to those working is not just something that is nice to have high. It is calculated from the state of the system. If the pay is bad then do something about it. Sometimes the only thing you can do is find a different job as there are too many workers in the industry.

Also, the industry can regulate this more if IT people want more money. Take the Medical Profession for example. They place a limit on the number of accepted students every year. If CS education did this as well, then the decreased supply (I don't think the demand is going anywhere) will force employers to pay the workers more money. On the reverse side, not as many people would have jobs. This is almost like the question on Socialism vs. Capitalism. If you want everyone to be working and be marginally content, then don't expect alot of money. Judging from this article, that is not what people want but infact the Capitalistic prespective in that they want more money.

Re:Theory: Placement rate

[Marxist Hacker 42]

With the result of fewer people actually working. If they'd factor in all the people now earning $0 or minimum wage with their CS degree, it would make more sense.

Yep, theory makes sense and fits the facts.

Re:Quickly!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an amazing number of pro-Bush, pro-Republican trolls on this slashdot list. I find that surprising and interesting. Are you a 'right-leaning' supporter from a libertarian bent? This would make sense to me. What are you general views on the pressing economic issues? What do you think about how the DOJ, under Bush's watch, has handled the Microsoft case? Do you thinks Bush's admin has anything to do with, and are you troubled by the 'homeland security' procedures implemented by the FBI and airports? Not a troll here - there just seems to be some inconsistencies between the views expressed by a 'right-leaning' political party and those often read on /.

Re:Are they really?

[DAldredge]

You forget that not every one can do the high tech work. You also forget that they can vote.

If it gets bad enought they will just vote them a much larger portion of your check.

New graduates don't have a clue...

[Darlok]

As a partner in a small tech consulting business, I can state without reservation, "New CS Graduates don't have a clue what they're worth." The survey is almost certainly taken from a handful of large, national employers with fixed entry-level employement packages.

The truth is that most CS graduates go into smaller businesses. And when they walk in my front door, they have no clue what they should be making. I've had B-students who held a student job doing data entry for their University walk in the door and tell me they're "willing" to work for $75,000 a year, to be a code monkey after graduation. I've also had graduate students with quite a bit of experience walk in and tell me they're expecting $36-40k.

Depending on how many /. articles they read over the last 5 years, you either end up with new grads with no experience, who think they're the second coming, or experienced folks who had a bad co-op or were laid off rapidly from their first job, who walk in demoralized, and are willing to work for peanuts.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of "What's a Degree Worth" is bunk. 90% of a new grad's worth has little to do with their academic program, and everything to do with their attitude, their experiences, and their fitness for the job. There's MIT grads that I wouldn't hire if they were the last non-Indian programmers on the planet.

A degree is worth nothing. The grad's attiude and ability to produce is what sets their salary. Lacking that, they're either unemployed 6 months later, or getting bonuses and raises because the company wants to encourage loyalty and keep them around for a long time. The diploma on your wall has very little to do with that.

Re:New graduates don't have a clue...

[Lumpy]

getting bonuses and raises because the company wants to encourage loyalty and keep them around for a long time.

where the hell do you work??? What you speak of flies in the face of what corperate policy is.

Do more and bust your arse = very little thanks and only more work with a "sorry no money available for raises" while we hear about the CTO getting a 1.2M bonus.

I would kill to work for a company that encourages hard work and rewards for a job well done.

Re:New graduates don't have a clue...

[Pragmatix]

A degree is definately worth something--it can be a solid foundation on which to build real-world skills. Problem solving, abstract reasoning and communication skills are all part in parcel of a degree from a good institution. In addition, understanding the fundemental principles of computer science can make learning new languages and technologies easier.

Of course a degree alone is worth nothing. What really matters is the person. If the person sucks, then they will suck no matter what degree they have. If the person is good, a degree can only increase their value to your organization.

Now, would I pay more money for a person with or without a degree? No. But a degree may influence my hiring decision.

Re:Got to be an average.

[NerveGas]

The people making $130,000 per year in Silicon Valley make those making $42,000 per year feel really bad - at least until you look at the cost of housing in Silicon Valley.

A good number of years ago, when I made $35,000 per year, I did some cost-of-living calculations to live an equivalent lifestyle around the nation. In some places, I would have needed to make $90,000 just to break even.

steve

always a demand

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you guys, but there is always going to be a local demand for good IT professionals.

No matter how much stuff gets shipped overseas, there exists the need for people here to plan and implement everything.

You can't blame stuff like this on ANY president.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Presidents don't create or destroy jobs. They don't raise or lower wages. At best, what they can do is create circumstances that make it possible or impossible for CORPORATIONS to do these things.

You know what caused the tech market crash? Clinton? Bush? No... YOU did! By "you" I mean every American who pissed their savings away by investing WAY too much money in an empire that (at the time) had almost nothing to offer in terms of REAL product. As a result of all the venture capital flying around, too many .coms were created, hiring way too many people for jobs that the market simply wasn't prepared to sustain for the long term.

The result? Exactly what SHOULD happen. Companies collapse, people lose their jobs (unfortunately), and the economy (not the president), along with the basic rules of supply and demand, slowly corrects our mistakes.

Re:I got my raise last year

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed "Bill Gates' dog"

Re:What a Crock

[Politburo]

Because companies don't like to buy from Joe Programmer. They'd much rather buy from a name like Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc. Something that will be around next year.

Re:What a Crock

[Grishnakh]

I'm guessing it's because 1) it's impossible to compete with entrenched companies like Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. in their own markets, so you have to go after tiny niche markets that the big players ignore, and 2) unless you happen to already work someplace close to that niche market, you'll have no idea that it exists and that you could enter it.

Most of the stories I hear about people starting their own businesses center on the concept of them stumbling into some situation and discovering a niche market there. They never go out and find this market intentionally.

Re:What a Crock

[mrlpz]

Damn...for a guy with a nick named after the main ruling communist body, you sure do sound like a Capitalist PIG. That was a compliment, by the way.

Anyway, you're ABSO-F$cking-lutely right ! 100% on the money. What ? Don't you think that HUNDREDS of those shareware programs ARE worth the few sheckels tha guy's asking for ? Sure they are. Are they getting rich ? HELL NO !

Why, because of EXACTLY the reasons you mention. And then you have costs like documentation, QA, support, etc..etc.. All that costs money.

Even if you're a genius and can take an idea from soup to nuts and get it out there. Every minute you spend on support, is a minute you're either not coding a new feature for a new version that will give your company growth, or.....anothe minute that you're not there making another sale.

And then again, how many different "Pool Maintenance Manager" programs can co-exist, and give enough people a livelihood to make it feasible for them to pursue in the first place ? What ? Do you think everybody ( maybe you single clowns can, but us family folks....fohgeddabboudit ) has the amount of time it takes to get something like that out there, and still keep their day job ? Or...conversely, have the seed money to keep their lights on while they're doing it. Of course, not.

Yes I've worked on side projects here and there, and it's made me some $$, but not NEAR enough to retire on, I assure you. It's not a "woe is me" attitude, it's a REALITY attitude....if you're single and you can make it happen...
FANTASTIC...knock yourself the hell out.

But, if you're like most of us ( and there are STILL more of us "old guys" out there than there are of you younger turks ), you have to balance the needs of the many ( the kids ) over the needs of the few ( Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have my own software company down in the florida keys ).

Re:What a Crock

[geoffspear]

You don't need to give anyone a raise to have a higher average salary. You just lay off all of the lower-paid employees, replacing them with contracted offshore labor, and let your higher-paid managers keep their jobs.

It's just like lowering the unemployment rate by waiting for people to give up looking for jobs instead of actually creating new jobs. Lying with statistics is fun!

And Vice Versa

[weston]

Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?

For the same reason that when nice things happen, the Bush campaign proclaims that their plans are working, but when bad things happen, it's because we're just in tough times.

Yes, people who don't like Bush see more reasons to dislike Bush in the information they encounter. But this isn't unique to his critics, nor make him a particularly uniquely beleagured president.

Hate to Burst a Bubble

[Shihar]

It takes a vast amount of stupidity to blame Clinton for the great years in the 90's and Bush for the slow years opening the new decade. I hate to burst bubbles (haha, pun) but the reason why the Clinton years were so great was because the Internet came into full force on his watch. He had absolutely nothing to do with it. At the very best you can credit him for not taking on protectionist policies that might have thrown water on the fire. Other then staying pretty much out of the way, Clinton just so happened to be president during the world's most significant technological boom to date. If you worked in industry in the 80's and still work in it now, you know the impact e-mail and personal computers has made, and it isn't a little one.

Bush happened to catch the tail end of the boom. More specifically, he caught the boom that a bursting tech bubble makes. The technology bubble burst, and neither Clinton nor Bush had anything to do with it. Worst still, Bush then got to be on watch as 9/11 happened. Unless you believe Bush had the ability to stop it (and that takes some pretty creative hindsight argue), he wasn't responsible for subsequent crash that resulted from both 9/11 and the burst bubble. Giving him credit or blame for what happened is down right stupid.

If another terrorist attack occurs and it has a financial impact, say terrorist blow up Wall Street or nuke or a US city, then you would be completely justified in pointing the figure squarely at Bush and the US congress for ruining the economy.

The president of the US controls only two (arguably three) things when it comes to the economy. The first is that a US president needs to not go overboard with protectionism. I am not saying they can't use a little of it now and then against other nations doing the same, but so long as they keep their protectionist impulses in check, they are doing close to all they can. Second, a US president needs to keep control of large macroscopic problems. In other words, the president needs to keep good trade relations up with all nations that matter and keep other nations/entities from blowing up things in the US. Arguably the third piece is that the president needs to keep debt in check. I say arguably because economists have recently begun to question how important the debt figures really are. Some are arguing that government debt doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things for a nation like the US.

Bush's score is about as good as any other president's score. In other words, he hasn't done anything blatantly stupid to the economy and has kept trade relations solid. From a purely economic standpoint, the only thing Bush has done that is arguably bad is his anti-terrorism policies. It could be argued that he has increased the likelihood of a finically crippling terrorist attack.

I am not saying Bush is the cat's meow, but I am saying that giving Bush credit for a poor economy and Clinton credit for a good economy is utterly stupid. If the two had switch presidencies the economic world be about the same. Bush would have had an economic boom and Clinton would have had a recession. There might have been a difference in the intensity of these cycles, but nothing more.

Re:What a Crock

[bytesmythe]

I'm so cynical I have a tendency to view this as something originating with a wink and a nudge from a political party or supporting organization.

You're not the only one... I don't believe anything anymore, and I get more cynical with each passing moment.

Maybe the American political process would be better off if everyone just assumed the Powers That Be were lying to them with every breath. The resulting interpretation would probably be much closer to the truth than the bullshit spewed at us from people whose jobs depend on convincing us that Things Are Looking Up.

Re:You can't blame stuff like this on ANY presiden

[paranoic]

When they stop taking credit for a good economy, I'll stop blaming them for a bad economy.

Bush's Fault, Clinton's Fault, Bush's Fault, Regan

[TiggertheMad]

Probably for the same reason why Bush is 'getting' credit for shooting terroists in afghanistan, when Clinton spent the last eight years building up the nation's military capablility to deal with terrorists, despite the fact that Bush's staff blew off all of Clinton's warnings in 2000.

Life is is pretty complex, and you can't really really pin down who's fault the economy is, unless they do something pretty bad to screw it up.

That being said, the Economic downturn wasn't Bush's fault. Ignoring the economy to waste billions on Iraq is his fault. He gave irresponsable tax cuts to the rich. He has turned a balanced budget into a massive deficit.

Proper credit where credit is due...

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[Omega1045]

While I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it at all. You cannot blame Bush for what others decided on speculation of laws and policies that would be made in the next four years.

The simple fact is that the dot com bubble burst. Two many tech related industries grew too fast. Is this Clinton's fault? I really don't like the man, but I don't blame him. I don't think anyone would have foreseen the situation we got ourselves into. I do blame Reno and the feds for not keeping a tighter reign on corporate fraud.

Blame Bush for any number of things, but blaming him for an economy tanking two months in just sounds like a desperate attempt to lay more stuff on him just because you don't like him and want more reasons to not like him.

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[gcaseye6677]

That's quite a stretch, to claim that the mere idea of a Bush presidency scared everyone into bailing out of investments and tanking the economy. Telecom lobbyists, and for that matter all lobbyists, are not stupid enough to base all of their efforts around one politician or party. You bet your ass they were out lobbying Gore as well. Telecom deregulation took place over a number of years, and was supported by Democrats and Republicans.

As for the Microsoft trial sabotage, this occurred due to Microsoft's massive lobbying efforts, which they only began to do after the guilty verdict. Bill really didn't see the point in political involvement until the breakup verdict, which was a wake up call to MS that they need to play by "the rules" if they want to play in the big leagues. See my earlier statement about lobbyists playing both sides of the field.

As for oil prices, I recall a large spike in gasoline prices in EARLY 2000. Who was president? Once again, the oil industry has BOTH parties in their pocket. I think it's clear that, had Gore been elected, things would not be that much different with the exception of Iraq.

Salaries not an issue if you can't even get a job

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

What difference does the salaries make if you CAN'T EVEN GET A JOB?!?

Knowing you would've made more money if you could even get hired doesn't put food on the table.

And of course salaries can go up if there are less people to employ. A given amount of money divided less ways is more per person.

But it doesn't matter how big the pieces of the pie are if you aren't even allowed at the table.

Re:Where's biotech?

[rice0067]

I would say that this is pretty accurate. In 2001 academic positions for a BS with no experience were starting at 25K or 23K if you work at cheap ass Brigham and womans.

I now get paid somewhere around 30K, and I think I should be able to command around 35-40K in an industry job. (In fact with 3 years exp and my skills I would be insulted to get any less than 35K)

Anyway.. Academic jobs are lower paid because you are only supposed to be in them for 2-3 years as a training position. You are then supposed to go off to higher education. If you want to work in biotech as a leader in research you need a Ph.D,
but if you want a nice job where you don't have to make hard decisions a masters will do nicely.
And by the way PhDs are paid about 20K living stipend while in grad school
(TUFTS pais 25K... Umass pays 19K)

Overall not too bad. (unless you like want to buy a house or something silly like that in boston :) )

Re:Actually, you CAN kill the economy in 2 months.

[Anonymous Coward]

The political rhetoric on /. is just amazing. I cannot see how this post from Magnus gets a Score 5, Informative. He's spouting off non-sense. You cannot say that investors went one way or another just becuase Bush was elected. That's like saying they had some sort of crystal ball to gaze in and just knew that the right choice was with "big firms" and not "CLEC"s because of Bush. It's all speculative. Also, to say that the .com bust would not have affected other sectors as badly if Bush was not in office is ludicrous. The markets are affected by how investors are feeling. If investors see a whole segment of the economy going up in flames before their eyes, you better believe they are going to have knee-jerk reactions when it comes to other sectors. The economic bust started under Clinton, and it continued into the next administration. If Gore had been elected, he would have inheritted the same tanking economy. I think some people's political biases are starting to affect mod points here.

Re:Bush's Fault, Clinton's Fault, Bush's Fault, Re

[Tlosk]

What should we have done? Let the inspectors finish their jobs maybe? Assemble a convincing case and get UN approval before playing cowboy half way across the world for something Hussein *might* do? Afghanistan was one thing, but we also had widespread support, because it was a reasonable and just thing to do, going directly after Bin Laden.

Iraq was something we never should have undertaken. Life is filled with choosing the lesser of two evils. Invading a sovereign nation and pissing off 90% of the Arab world, torturing people, ignoring basic rights, excluding ourselves from international treaty agreements, this whole mess is going to return to us ten-fold over the next century.

*I* did? Funny, I thought the fed did that...

[MacDork]

First of all, DJIA != Economy.

But since someone brought it up... I remember Greenspan playing a key role in helping that bubble burst. You know, Mr. Irrational Exuberance himself. The guy raising interest rates with the stated purpose of 'slowing down the overheating economy.'

He also stood by and watched Clinton sign away depression era laws in 1999 that had been on the books for decades. Yeah, that's him on the far left. These laws separated banks, securities firms, and insurance companies for a reason. Imagine a bank invested in the stock market. Not only is this a risky investment for a bank holding *YOUR* money, but suppose it provides a conflict of interest. The bank is also dispensing investment advice. Banks might mislead investors in order to bail themselves out of a bad investment, no? Well guess what happens next...

• In 2002, Accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of a single charge stemming from its lackluster auditing of Enron. That action forced Andersen, one of the largest and most respected auditors in the world, to go out of business.

• There was plenty of blame to go around. Corporate executives had cooked books while lining their pockets. Analysts at investment banks had recommended stocks they knew were dogs in a quid pro quo that ensured banking business from those same firms.

Which brings us back around to the real reason for our failing economy. Gross mismanagement of tax laws, banking regulations, and the federal budget by congress and the president. And not just this congress and not just this president. You don't get a 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt overnight. That, friend, you cannot blame on me or the terrorists.

Re:What a Crock

[Dread_ed]

My condolences on your net 2% loss in income over the last year. I am sure all of the chronically unemployed people will morn your loss. Oh, and those with permanent disabilities will surely bemoan the vicissitudes of modern corporate employment with you, of this I am sure. Plus those overseas outsorced employees who do the work of a $50,000/yr American for a little less than than the cost of you shoe budget and live in sod huts will contrive to share your pain as well.

If you couldn't see through your shroud of bitterness there was just a hint of sarcasm there. After reading your post the feeling I came away with is that you are someone who feels that they are entitled to things and that the world owes them something. I could be wrong, but a minor setback should be encouragement for you and a learning experience, not grounds for excessive animosity. Heaven forbid that you have a real setback in life, you might do something rash.

In the spirit of being helpful I will loan you some advice. I say loan because I do not own this, it was taught to me by someon else.

Bitterness is a poison that will destroy your life. It makes you angry about those things you should be thankful and happy about. It can destroy your chances for things that could really help you to feel happy or contented and that can help you in the future. Furthermore, when you do receive some of those things that should make you happy, bitterness will not let you enjoy them. You might even squander or discard some of the best things in your life due to bitterness. Then you get to add regret to the pile of emotional baggage when you realize it later. Don't think that those around you can't see that you are bitter. It is impossible to hide. It makes people uneasy and sometimes even unwilling to associate with you, and what it can do to romantic relationships is shocking and hideous. I hope you never have to find that out first hand.

The easiest way out of being bitter is to look at your circumstances with an eye for opportunity. In other workds, be positive and be thankful. You will be amazed how much that can help your mentality, and eventually your circumstances, if you apply it and put aside your negative emotions. They really only hurt you.

I actually took a $20,000 pay cut last year due to market problems in my industry. If I had not kept my mind focused on my responsibilitie and remained positive and aware of opportunities I would have missed out on the job I have currently. To date this year, in my new job, I have earned almost two times what I made in my previouls highest paid year. I am positive that if I had been angry or bitter about the colossal pay cut I had taken I would not have been mentally able to take advantage of the opportunities that were in front of me. They might not have even become available to me at all if I had been harboring feelings like that.

As for the rant about consumerism, I agree with your distain of some aspects of American comsumption. However, each individual is responsible for, and the product of, their own decisions. You cannot blame external circumstances for situations which were brought on by your own choices, and being completely contrary is still letting capitalism control your behavior, just in a negative way. Better to just acknowledge the flaws of the system you currently live under and take advantage of the upside.

As for your closing statement: I hope for the world's sake that the USA continues for quite a while. Do you have any idea how much food we export and what percentage of the world gets a significant portion of their daily calories from US sources?